John, we cannot 'civilize' a society that seeks as Osama said seeks the stronger horse. You must at some point accept that the values of Suburban Hooterville don't make it for the Umah. All people are human but not all people are kindly, nor rational, nor reasonable. For fighting yesterday's war's and knowing a bit about the people that attacked us and why they attacked us, without having great military knowledge, I would have done a fair warn-off first. Message: If your team even breathes on a kuffar, I will damage your civilization in a hideous manner. My method (being junior Napoleon) if they failed to listen, which they would have, would invoke a level of "my" brutality not seen since the Christmas bombing of Haiphong Harbor, Christmas 1972. Refined, to use lots of your favorite and mine, thermobaric's. Again, brutality warmed over, likely, horrifying the rest of the world. Geneva Conventions, trials, all the fun stuff. Ultimately, my goal would have been to make the Jihadists risk-averse. My thing I would have done is decidedly not held ground. I don't want an empire and never have. I don't need your contempt for the jihadists, but endorsing strong actions is the road to survival of our civilization. I would have adapted an eliminationist-massive retaliatory view. Thermobarics can level mountains The Politburo wanted and empire and had one. Not for me. An H-bomb would open many doors and all of then leading to bad places. Sleepy Joe's choice was emphatically NOT to either drop an H-Bomb on Kabul or lose the country. He did it for politics, for ideology. Adversaries and friends see the DNC weakness, and we'll pay for his lack of care and poor judgement. The Han have a term for your party and its ideology. Baizuo. Please attend.https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/an-intergenerational-divide/98486
Like I blathered above, the values of Suburban Hotterville don't make it for the Umah, or the Chinese. Not your fault and not mine. I simply see punching back twice as hard as being a necessity for survival and disagreeing with Mr. Jesus of Nazareth, that turning the other cheek can simply get us all killed. Purely practical, purely observable. Another related note. I had read a claim that Bush 43 allowed Bin Laden in December 2001 did an agreement with the Ayatollahs to head for Iran for safety. I have zero idea if this is true of just Disinformation aka propaganda, but since I read it a few months ago, I ponder it's possible validity? Could be a dirty lie, or could be a dirty truth? -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 31, 2021 7:10 am Subject: Re: The American Taliban On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 9:29 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > did the DNC cheat with the election ballots? No. > On Tucker, I understood him to mean that if you want to defend yourselves, >you'd better better be in a fighting mindset, You can't win a war with a mindset, you need to use specific tactics and specific weapons, Tucker thought patriarchy would have enabled the US to win the war, but somehow I don't think making American women wear beekeeper suits when they are out in public would have been enough to do the trick. So can you do better than Tucker, or the Soviets, or the American generals, WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU HAVE IN MIND? > If you wish to battle the Tali's and their supporters, you must name the > enemy which would be Jihadist ideology. And I challenge anybody to have more contempt for Jihadist ideology, or a Christian theology, or theology in general, then me. > yet you didn't like (when you asked) what I would've done back in 2001 post > 9-11. I didn't like it because your answer was dumb. > I did mention thermobaric's and you replied the Soviets tried these. True, you did mention that, and both the Soviets and the USA used thermobaric bombs in Afghanistan, and they both lost the war in Afghanistan. > I would have shaken the Islamists to their foundations, You keep saying that but, except when you get silly and talk about thermobarics, you never get specific when I ask exactly what you would have done that would've enabled you to do what the Soviets could not. Do you really think the Soviets were too gentle and were not brutal enough? With the exception of submarines (which would have been rather difficult to use since Afghanistan is a landlocked country) and H-Bombs, the USA used every weapon in its arsenal and still lost. So is that the reason you keep dancing around my question, you're embarrassed to admit that if you were president you would've dropped a Thermonuclear device on Kabul? Hmm.... that would explain why you refuse to sign your real name to your screeds, in a way I can sympathize, if I held your opinions I'd be ashamed of them too. > if you want to defend yourselves, you'd better better be in a fighting > mindset, You can't win a war with a mindset, you need to use specific tactics and specific weapons, WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU HAVE IN MIND? John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis xay o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/163091736.1099003.1630456614652%40mail.yahoo.com.
